Calling all armchair generals! Boudica's Last Stand.

[Renatus]

The link refers to your question,which then of course refers back to the post its related to, the contents of which i copy pasted that answer your question. I also answerd it seperatly in yet another post, 2002 "Tactitis tells us how he is going to record events Tactitus, e suum quaeque in annum referre 4.71, meaning he intends to record each event in its year of occurrence, he list 2 years and chronicles the events, one of the years lacks crops sown." Why your confused as to how many campaign season there are in 2 years, i have no idea, esp since since i refererd to not being sure it can be all done ina single one several times.

Thank you.  I think we're getting somewhere.

What particularly interests me at this stage is your take on the chronology of this event, rather than the logistical grounds for your reaching your conclusions.  I think that it would be helpful to summarize what Tacitus has to say on the matter, not because I think that you are unfamiliar with it but because I think that a brief resume would assist the debate.  He begins by saying that in AD61 a disaster occurred in Britain.  A tribal revolt broke out while the governor Suetonius Paulinus was campaigning on Anglesey.  He was in the final stages of that campaign when the news reached him.  He made his way through hostile territory to London and in the meantime Colchester was sacked and the Ninth Legion was severely mauled.  In London, he concluded that he had insufficient troops to defend the town and left.  London was then sacked by the rebels, as was St. Albans.  Finally, having collected a force of about 10,000 men, he engaged the enemy in battle and, despite their superior numbers, decisively defeated them.  After this, he brought his whole army together and kept them in tents to finish the war.  Legionary and auxiliary reinforcements were sent from Germany and the auxiliaries were placed in new winter quarters.  Meanwhile, Suetonius embarked on a campaign of reprisals and, in addition to the distress caused by this, the rebels also suffered from famine, having gone to war without having planted crops, believing that they would be able to seize all they needed from the Romans.  A number of rebels who had escaped from the battle remained at large, being unwilling to surrender for fear of the retribution they would suffer at the hands of Suetonius.  Consequently, the new procurator, Julius Classicianus, reported to Rome that there would be no end to the fighting as long as Suetonius remained governor.  An imperial freedman, Polyclitus, was sent to investigate and, following his report, Suetonius was retained in office.  However, following a further setback involving the loss of a number of ships, he was replaced by Petronius Turpilianus.  Turpilianus took no further action against the rebels and peace ensued.  I believe that this is a reasonably neutral summary of Tacitus' account.

In the article in Britannia that you cited, Kevin Carroll comments that all those who have studied the revolt realize that Tacitus' account covers more than one year.  You say that he lists two years and refer to his statement in Ann. 4.71 that he will deal with events in the year in which they occur.  Carroll takes a different approach and calls in aid Ann. 12.40.5 in which he states that, for ease of comprehension, he has dealt with an event as a whole, although it spans more than one year.  Carroll believes that he has done this with the Boudican revolt and it is arguable that, in doing so, he has actually recorded a period including parts of three years, if Petronius Turpilianus remained in Britain until AD63, leaving in that year to become curator aquarum in Rome.  His approach seems to be borne out by the beginning of the following chapter, Ann. 14.40, which starts, 'That same year', apparently referring back to AD 61 and thus indicating that Tacitus was resuming his annalistic method.  Carroll assumes that the revolt broke out in May 61 and lasted for about five weeks until the final battle, the subsequent events occupying the rest of that year and part of the following year(s).

What I draw from your latest comments (please correct me if I am wrong) is that Suetonius commenced his Anglesey campaign in spring and that it was the spring planting season that was missed.  Your query as to why the Romans did not notice that crops had not been planted implies that the revolt actually broke out after that time.  In all these three instances, it would be helpful to know the month in which you consider them to have occurred.  If they have, perhaps, been mentioned before, please repeat them; do not just refer to the earlier post.  This makes it easier to follow your argument.

Your comment, 'Why your confused as to how many campaign season there are in 2 years, I have no idea', answers the question that I raised earlier as to what you meant by a '2 season event'; you were referring to campaigning seasons.  This raises two questions; which of the events described by Tacitus do you ascribe to which season and what do you envisage happening (if anything) in the intervening period between the two seasons.  I look forward to your comments on these matters.